Another take on Arabs vs. Israel

[heretic888]

Good guys and bad guys, I am not sure that is always the criteria for the different wars that have been fought. It is pretty hard to put that judgement.

I suggest you look at what I said in the context of this thread, and the context of this speech. That is exactly what the speaker in question was positing: that the Jews are "good" and the Arabs are "bad".

And, that was exactly why I criticized the black-and-white dichotomy on my very first post of this thread.

Do you think freedom of religion is in there somewhere???

I don't think its really prevalent in either Israel or Palestine.

Its hard to claim religious freedom when Israel declares itself a "Jewish State". The religious exclusivism of countries like Palestine is also self-evident.

Like I said before, this all boils down to tribal mythologies of blood, soil, and divine mandate. Unless one or both sides gives up --- or at least lessens --- their particular mythology, this conflict will never end. Precisely, because both sides believe that living in said region is their "birthright".

As before, scary scary stuff.

 

[Mark Weiser]

I just read the speech and I was moved deeply. Being Jewish and also involved in the Counter Terrorism field and the Medical field. I know exactly what she is referring too. I applaude her courage and strength and I hope if just one person stops from committing one act of Terrorism due to this speech. Then she has a special place in the minds and hearts of the Jewish People.

Mazel Tov Madam.

 

[Tgace]

While obviously one sided...there is some difference between a group whos stated goal is the wholesale destruction of another nation and uses terrorism as a matter of policy. From a nation, while guilty of their own sins as well, attempt to or at least state they do not target non-combatants and believe their goal is self-preservation...

 

[heretic888]

While obviously one sided...there is some difference between a group whos stated goal is the wholesale destruction of another nation and uses terrorism as a matter of policy. From a nation, while guilty of their own sins as well, attempt to or at least state they do not target non-combatants and believe their goal is self-preservation...

The truth is there are extremists and moderates on both sides. Palestine had the misfortune of being under the rule of an extremist sociopath until very recently. Israel's current leader is more moderate, but there are still a number of warhawks and extremists within Israeli government.

 

[kenpo tiger]

The truth is there are extremists and moderates on both sides. Palestine had the misfortune of being under the rule of an extremist sociopath until very recently. Israel's current leader is more moderate, but there are still a number of warhawks and extremists within Israeli government.

And within the population at large. You all know me by my posts here and I think that *one* would not categorize me as an extremist or warhawk -- but... there are certain things which cannot be discussed dispassionately. For some of us, the issue of a Jewish state (homeland) is not negotiable.

 

[PeachMonkey]

For some of us, the issue of a Jewish state (homeland) is not negotiable.

Problems come when people take any criticism of Israeli policy as being equal to a denial of a right to an Israeli state, and moreover, when the extremist version of the Jewish homeland vision lives on in exclusion of the human rights of any other people in the region.

I don't think most Israelis or non-Israeli jews hold such extreme views, of course. And I hope that Arafat's death will lead to a reduction in such extremism on the Palestinian side as well. But as long as both sides tend to behave in such reactionary ways, progress can never be made.

 

[Phoenix44]

there is some difference between a group whos stated goal is the wholesale destruction of another nation and uses terrorism as a matter of policy. From a nation, while guilty of their own sins as well, attempt to or at least state they do not target non-combatants and believe their goal is self-preservation

I agree that Israel must withdraw from the territories, and I believe they will. I don't know WHAT they were thinking by building there (except that they did gain those territories in a war that Israel didn't start). But this is a major point: How in the world do you "negotiate" with people whose consistently stated public goal is to drive your entire nation into the sea? (And BTW, they have NEVER withdrawn that goal, not even at this late date) Or who cannot (or will not) even stop their own people's violence long enough for you to negotiate or to withdraw? Or who consistently targets civilians: school buses, nightclubs, busy markets?

Think about it in personal terms: How much negotiating would you be doing with an individual who says: "I'm going to kill you no matter what because you have no right to live," while they're actively kicking you in the groin and brandishing a knife?

Right now I'm optimistic. Arafat was the Palestinian's greatest obstacle to peace. With a new leader who is making attempts to reign in his own people's terrorists, I think there may be a chance.

But bear in mind, there are still outside extremists in the area who will foment violence because they simply do not want any Jewish state.

 

[Tgace]

The US drops a bomb accidentally on, say a school, and its a feeding frenzy...Terrorists attack civilians intentionally and its "they believe they are freedom fighters"....I dont get it.

 

[heretic888]

The US drops a bomb accidentally on, say a school, and its a feeding frenzy...Terrorists attack civilians intentionally and its "they believe they are freedom fighters"....I dont get it.

I'm not sure who exactly has stated this, but that seems most bizarre.

 

[Tgace]

I'm not sure who exactly has stated this, but that seems most bizarre.

Ive seen variants on the "You cant judge the terrorists by our standards they think they are freedom fighters yadda yadda.." on various threads and forums. While short of approval they are far from condemnation.

 

[Flatlander]

Ive seen variants on the "You cant judge the terrorists by our standards they think they are freedom fighters yadda yadda.." on various threads and forums. While short of approval they are far from condemnation.

If you consider this position objectively, the "terrorists" are considered thus due specifically to their opposition of viewpoint, as well as the methods they employ to further their position. It seems to me that diplomatic solutions can only bear fruit when entered into by parties represented sufficiently by a government, with the necessary leverages being trade relations and other economic and political considerations. The fact here is that the people being labelled "terrorist" have no such representation, or political equity to leverage.

 

[heretic888]

Ive seen variants on the "You cant judge the terrorists by our standards they think they are freedom fighters yadda yadda.." on various threads and forums. While short of approval they are far from condemnation.

Well mass-murder for political purposes is wrong, in my opinion, no matter how you look at it....

However, I think the argument more commonly used have to do with the rather self-defeating attitude that the terrorists are inherently, fundamentally "evil" --- which tends to ignore the motivations and reasons these individuals may have for trying to do what they do. If we are to win this struggle, I believe it is essential to understand these mindsets and motivations. Don't just carte blanch dismiss them as "evil" or "insane".

To do otherwise is a fundamental rejection of Sun Tzu, which I believe is a rather stupid approach. Unfortunately, this is the approach the current presidential administration seems to have chosen (i.e., ignore what cultural, social, and strategic experts have to say about these people and just rely on pre-formed mythological ideologies).

Know thine enemy. It is both the moral, and practical, approach.

 

[Tgace]

Yes...and use that knowledge to defeat the enemy.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Is this really true? The only reason I ask is because Brigitte Gabriel doesn't sound like a Lebanese name.

Brigitte is of French origin, I believe, as Gabriel might be. Lebanon was a French colony. Even though she's Arab, it is quite possible she came by the name via a French ancestor.

Here's some more information on Ms. Gabriel. A stunning woman, to be certain.

http://www.charityadvantage.com/sss/BRIGITTEGABRIEL.asp

http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/db_video.html


Regards,


Steve

 

[ghostdog2]

I'm not sure we need to understand anybody's mindset or motivation to win this struggle. We've had experience with suicide bombers before. They were called Kamikaze, I believe.
We dropped a couple of A bombs on them and they became lamb like.

 

[MisterMike]

Yep. Warn them once, that if they don't stop the killing, we're gonna drop one on Mecca.

There's no need to keep playing around...

 

[heretic888]

Wow. You guys really do have no clue who we're fighting, do you??

 

[MisterMike]

Oh the suspense is killing me...

 

[heretic888]

You realize, of course, that we're fighting loosely-organized, widely-proliferated networks of terrorists, correct??

And, as such, "blow the hell" out of any one place will, at best, have a minimal effect --- not to mention slaughter millions of innoncent lives.

If anything, it'll prove to the rest of the Arab world that the terrorists are right about us and they're recruitment rates will increase tenfold.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Yep. Warn them once, that if they don't stop the killing, we're gonna drop one on Mecca.

There's no need to keep playing around...

And then say goodbye to Jerusalem, and possibly D.C.

Way to distinguish between "terrorists" and "all Muslims".